Windows “Blue” screenshots leak, but it’s still a complete unknown

Early screenshots leak as Microsoft remains tight-lipped.

The next version of Windows is apparently codenamed "Blue," and current rumors are that it will be released some time this year. If it pans out, this would mark the end of Microsoft's three-year upgrade cycle.

The first alleged leaks of "Blue" have started to hit the Internet. As is common for early leaks, they're not giving a great deal away. Such leaks tend to fixate on version numbers, and such is the case with the "Blue" leaks.

We do have a couple of tiny morsels of information, however. First, a screenshot from Russian site Microsoft Portal contains both a build number—9319—and a version number—6.3. If accurate, this means Microsoft is sticking with its policy of keeping the major version at 6, using only the minor version to distinguish between releases. 6.0 was Windows Vista, 6.1 was Windows 7, Windows 8 is 6.2, and so Windows "Blue" is logically enough version 6.3.

Second, Mary-Jo Foley is reporting that her sources say the first milestone build of "Blue" was completed within the last few days. This build, milestone M1, represents the halfway point of Windows "Blue" development. Foley's sources say there will only be one other milestone build before release.

Beyond that? It's a mystery. The new Windows version is sure to have new APIs—perhaps extending the reach and capabilities of Windows 8's new WinRT API—and it's inevitable that Microsoft will make some kind of change to the user interface. But what those new things will be, at the moment, is anybody's guess.

Microsoft is not commenting on the matter. With less than a year to go before the release of a new version of Windows, the company would normally be communicative with public betas and abundant developer documentation. In this new world of (allegedly) annual releases, however, silence is the order of the day.

I'm fine with these faster updates. If it's been one thing that's always irked me about MS it's the apparent feet dragging they do with stuff like this. Maybe having real competition is starting to affect them now. If so I'm all for Google and Apple to keep the pressure on; after all we all win in the end.

I wonder if they would go the Mac OS X route and charge for $20 for minor upgrades inbetween major releases.

I could go for that, however, is Windows itself ready for such a process? Windows 8 was the first in place upgrade I've ever done for Windows... Normally I've always heard, been told, and thus advised that you do a clean install to upgrade.

I mean, my W8 computers are fine, but I'm not the average Windows user (sadly enough). Low end for Ars is still better than average by a good deal :|

I wonder if they would go the Mac OS X route and charge for $20 for minor upgrades inbetween major releases.

I could go for that, however, is Windows itself ready for such a process? Windows 8 was the first in place upgrade I've ever done for Windows... Normally I've always heard, been told, and thus advised that you do a clean install to upgrade.

I mean, my W8 computers are fine, but I'm not the average Windows user (sadly enough). Low end for Ars is still better than average by a good deal :|

For me Vista to 7 was a trivial amount of work. My parents were afraid it was going to be this huge process, so they waited for me to do it. It was three clicks on a prompt that opened up when you put the new DVD in. So I doubt the architecture is really holding them back at this point.

I'll probably wait until 7.1, then. XP served well for years. Win7 will continue to be fine for a while. Not interested in a new OS every year.Sorry, Microsoft, but you've conditioned me to go several years between OS upgrades.

If they follow their standard release methodology the 6.3 should be a more usable version. I certainly hope so, most people are not happy with Windows '8'. I find it to be odd with no gains for the changes that were made. Other than that I can simply ignore the calls from users about not being able to use Cisco AnyConnect... }B*)

I'm a little surprised by this. I think in the past the slow release cycle was in MS's favor.

Microsoft exists on the fact that their windows platform is (comparatively) consistent, stable and widespread. If they start fragmenting it with overly quick releases then they're hurting themselves in this regard. Yes there is competition, and I could see a UI update given the radical departure of WIN8, but messing with their core operating system and API's too often is a sizable risk.

I hope they don't F* with the interface and location of components too much if they go to an annual release. XP was king for so long everyone had it and I could find every setting in every control panel. Almost nobody (I know) used Vista so I didn't have to relearn much. However, I now use 7 family members use 8 (or RT) and it appears that settings and control panels are changed just for the sake of change. Pretty soon the fragmentation of the Windows world will be such that anyone who interfaces with more than one computer will be exposed to 4 or 5 different UI's at any given time.

I wonder if they would go the Mac OS X route and charge for $20 for minor upgrades inbetween major releases.

That's the rumor. I believe Mary Jo Foley originally stated in her initial coverage that the plan was to keep the upgrade cost low to get people on the new yearly upgrade cycle that is planned with Blue. The recent article on the verge about this leak also reiterates the rumor. Personally I was expecting it to be in the $30 range, but I do hope for cheaper!

Microsoft want's to release more often because the company want's to move it's customers to a subscription pricing model. It'll be easier to grab unassuming customer cash if there is a perception of continual improvement.

I bet a Windows subscription will be $20.00 per month for the high end enterprise SKU.

If accurate, this means Microsoft is sticking with its policy of keeping the major version at 6, using only the minor version to distinguish between releases. 6.0 was Windows Vista, 6.1 was Windows 7, Windows 8 is 6.2, and so Windows "Blue" is logically enough version 6.3.

The version number is that of the kernel, I believe. The last truly major kernel revisions were made in NT6 (Vista) in order to support the new UAC constructs for ACLs on top of the existing ACL support within the kernel, to add support for cancelable I/O at the kernel level, and I believe to re-vamp some of the very bottom of the DX stack where it interacts with kernel-mode drivers. Since then I think there hasn't been anything major done at that layer of the OS to warrant a kernel version bump.

At least, that's how it has been explained to me in the past by random fellow Microsoft employees. I might be wrong.

Microsoft want's to release more often because the company want's to move it's customers to a subscription pricing model. It'll be easier to grab unassuming customer cash if there is a perception of continual improvement.

I bet a Windows subscription will be $20.00 per month for the high end enterprise SKU.

If this is the case Linux developers should be doing their damnedest to standardize Linux and make it more attractive to business and the home user to adopt. It may already be on its way to becoming a viable gaming platform with the release of Steam for Linux.

Microsoft want's to release more often because the company want's to move it's customers to a subscription pricing model. It'll be easier to grab unassuming customer cash if there is a perception of continual improvement.

I bet a Windows subscription will be $20.00 per month for the high end enterprise SKU.

If this is the case Linux developers should be doing their damnedest to standardize Linux and make it more attractive to business and the home user to adopt. It may already be on its way to becoming a viable gaming platform with the release of Steam for Linux.

The gamble the company is making is that the familiarity of Windows at work will entice consumers to pay a small monthly subscription for a "managed" Windows experience at home. I don't know if Linux can ever offer an experience like that. It would be interesting if it did.

The timing has the hallmark of a service pack but the modifications, including kernel changes, make this “update” close to Windows9.

That would be the right time for Microsoft to acknowledge that many of us, right or wrong, stupid or smart, willingly or reluctantly, find the start button a useful fixture. We have ended up installing one from a third party which is ridiculous. Other than that the desktop side is as fantastic as ever.

The real good news is that this update seems to be addressing some glaring deficiencies on the Metro side. Hopefully Microsoft will address the “only one and a half applications” policy. It makes absolutely no sense on large displays.

I'm a little surprised by this. I think in the past the slow release cycle was in MS's favor.

Maybe, but the past is presently yesterday and meanwhile then became now. Microsoft want consumers, and they are not as hungry for slow release cycles as enterprises are.

Personally I think Microsoft direct attempt to get consumers with their stupid dancing campaign is completel misguided. Microsoft provides a boring stable operating system and the most widely used productivity suit on the planet. They need to embrace productivity as their brand the same way SUV's embrace ruggedness and sell millions. Hipsters already ironically sport IBM patches and t-shirts - Microsoft path to being cool to embrace the fact that it's NOT cool and be ok with that. In today's world that is cool.

If accurate, this means Microsoft is sticking with its policy of keeping the major version at 6, using only the minor version to distinguish between releases. 6.0 was Windows Vista, 6.1 was Windows 7, Windows 8 is 6.2, and so Windows "Blue" is logically enough version 6.3.

The version number is that of the kernel, I believe. The last truly major kernel revisions were made in NT6 (Vista) in order to support the new UAC constructs for ACLs on top of the existing ACL support within the kernel, to add support for cancelable I/O at the kernel level, and I believe to re-vamp some of the very bottom of the DX stack where it interacts with kernel-mode drivers. Since then I think there hasn't been anything major done at that layer of the OS to warrant a kernel version bump.

At least, that's how it has been explained to me in the past by random fellow Microsoft employees. I might be wrong.

Windows 8 further moneyed around with ACLs. I/O was always cancelable; Windows Vista just made it a bit more robust and versatile. Prior to Vista, you could only cancel I/O from within the thread that issued the I/O; in Vista you could cancel I/O issued by any thread.

WDDM was quite big, perhaps the last really big kernel change.

But the official reason is much more plausible and depressing. Broken apps include version checks of major and minor version and barf if major version is >6. Some barf if major.min is >6.0 or 6.1, of course, but this is apparently less common.

Upgrading to a new OS can be a real pain if it results in broken software compatibility. That tends to not be a problem with marginal upgrades. If Blue is an upgrade on the level of a Service Pack, then monetizing it would be annoying, but at least everything would still work.

However, even if everything still worked, a subscription model would give me pause if that's what Windows releases are turning into with Blue.